Robert A. Heilein

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

It wasn't an authoritarian govt.  It was a free republic with a restricted voting franchise.  Restricted voting does not equal fascism.  

Which particular part of it struck you as "authoritarian"?  

The de facto requirement of military service before being granted full rights.  (And do I remember correctly that only soldiers could teach in schools?)  It's authoritarian, militarist, undemocratic, and would logically lead to a sort of soft military junta.  This is colloquially, informally, referred to as fascist.

Look, folks.  I'm not trying to insult anyone's religion.  RAH is one of my favorite authors, and I'm not criticizing him or any of his books.  He presented a lot of interesting and unique ideas, many of which were clearly taboo and "inappropriate", things ranging from deviant sexuality to the beneficial sides of autocratic governments and back to basic morality.  I think it's a good thing to think about these sorts of things, even if I don't necessarily agree with all of them.  I certainly feel no need to tip-toe around them or pretend or pretend they aren't there.

But whatever.  This isn't worth dwelling on.

[Matthew Carberry]

Not to dwell, but you shouldn't misstate the actual facts as a last word then walk away, that's firing off a straw man then taking your ball and going home.

It wasn't "military service", it was military or other gov't service which was tailored to fit the person's capabilities and absolutely unrestricted in access.

It wasn't any sort of junta, military or otherwise, as those in service had no ability to influence policy while serving.  If that's a "soft junta" what do you call every Western democracy today, where military members can vote while serving?  "semi-hard" juntas?

Finally, those who chose not to serve had full and equal rights, in fact they had more rights than those actually in service (whose rights were further restricted as necessary to their service).  The only restricted right was the right to vote, but even that was "restricted" only in as much as the individual could choose not to serve to gain it. 

It was a shall-issue, opt-in restriction.

[AJ Dual]

That's it in a nutshell. People reading Starship Troopers become outraged at the notion of an earned franchise, and then they knee-jerk ascribe all sorts of other attributes to RAH's imagined government.

People are arguing with you HTG, because you're assuming facts not in evidence, not because RAH is someone's "religion". (keep in mind I was the first to make cracks about his incest themes...)

It wasn't "earned" per-se, but the United States had a drastically limited franchise for much of it's history, were we a fascist state throughout that period too?

[MechAg94]

There was no military requirement for teaching.  It just happened that the teacher of the main characters govt philosophy class was a veteran.  

As said above, restricted voting franchise does not equal fascism.  IMO, fascism is basically communism with different propaganda.  When you start rolling other stuff under that name, you are stretching it too far.

I think the focus on the military life in the book is part of what gives people some of that impression, which is strange because part of the plot line is his argument with his businessman father who didn't want him to volunteer into the military.  

[Viking]

There was no military requirement for teaching.  It just happened that the teacher of the main characters govt philosophy class was a veteran.  

As said above, restricted voting franchise does not equal fascism.  IMO, fascism is basically communism with different propaganda.  When you start rolling other stuff under that name, you are stretching it too far.

I think the focus on the military life in the book is part of what gives people some of that impression, which is strange because part of the plot line is his argument with his businessman father who didn't want him to volunteer into the military.  

IIRC, there was a requirement that you had previously served in one way or another for that particular subject that Mr. Dubois taught. Not for the others though.

[RaspberrySurprise]

IIRC, there was a requirement that you had previously served in one way or another for that particular subject that Mr. Dubois taught. Not for the others though.

You are correct.

[MicroBalrog]

Most people support universal franchise just support universal franchise because that's what they know from real life, and we're taught in school to believe it's the best thing since sliced bread, and the schoolbooks portray it's development as a rush to progress.

Since I live in a country where a HEinleinian earned franchise has actually been seriously debated, I've come to oppose the notion, after thinking it through - but I don't think Heinlein intended a fascist notion with this. It's very easy to fall it into the trap though and think Heinlein is a fascist.

A lot of leftist critics do it because it makes the whole thing easier to dismiss.

[drewtam]

From my reading of SST, his vision didn't seem to be fascist at all. But that doesn't mean that it was workable, and probably breakdown into Roman style running of the empire by payment to the military.

He didn't get into the vital detail of taxation, but that to me is the key of whether the system would break down. If the non-citizens are taxed, then it would turn sour. The enfranchised would exploit the non-citizen. The non-citizen would revolt under the "no taxation without representation" from yesteryear.

If only the citizen is taxed, the infrastructure of local and national gov't could probably not be supported except in a very minimalist/anarchist form.

There may be some third way I am not seeing; but either situation doesn't seem stable.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Oy.  You people are worse than the Star Wars fan boys.  I suppose I should just accept that it's canonical and move on.

It's very easy to fall it into the trap though and think Heinlein is a fascist.

A lot of leftist critics do it because it makes the whole thing easier to dismiss.

Nobody here has said that Heinlein was a fascist, nor has anyone tried to dismiss anything he's written.

[Gewehr98]

But whatever.  This isn't worth dwelling on.

Then why'd you come back to it?

Value to APS as a thread has reached the point of diminishing returns.